Nope, a two seater economy car. It's rather glaring lack of power and basic construction makes it not a sports car. It is a very well designed economy coupe. An S2000 is a sports car, a Miata is not. A BMW Z3 and Z4 are sports cars, miatas are not. The new ones could be considered sports cars. But the older ones not so much.
Then it was probably the L4. The L6 generates much more power and is what gave it its sports label.
Depends on which MG or Triumph model. Also depends on the age. Generalizing by naming an entire company doesn't help.
A miata is a sports car though, its just not a fast one. Its a 2 seater convertible with an emphasis on the driving experience, I dont really see how it could be anything else. Its also not a coupe because its a convertible, there was a very limited one off run of mx5 coupes in 2003, but every single miata youve seen on the road with a convertible top falls into the category of roadster and sportcar. That doesnt mean a coupe cant be a sportscar by modern definitions. It definitely isnt an economy car either considering the price point and comparing it to actually economy vehicles like the fit, yaris, and versa in terms of mpg and msrp.
Its a cheaper/entry level sportscar in a similar vein as the brz or gr86, but a sportcar nonetheless.
I disagree. Being expensive, complicated, and powerful aren't absolute and defining features of sports cars imo.
The suburban mom's Audi Q5's power and repair costs don't make it any more of a sports car than the Miata's make it any less of one.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the miata's purpose is the driving dynamics. The point of an economy car (Not necessarily just an economical car) is to be a practical appliance. This tiny Japanese roadster would be a moronic choice of wheels for Jimothy "what's an oil change" Smith when he could buy literally anything else and better use that money, like a Geo Metro.
The Miata's purpose of driving is the sake of being driven. When you put that in the same bucket as affordability, you get a ubiquitous car that goes on the "free space" section of sports car bingo.
The ND miata is like schrodengers cat...since both cup holders are removable, it may both have and not have cupholders until you actually get in the car and realize your friend stole one to mess with you.
I have an NB. It does NOT have cupholders. It has these awkward, flimsy foldout rings that make it next to impossible to shift gears when you attempt to put a can of pop in the middle of them, though
That takes me back to my Nissan 200sx. Exactly this scenario. It had a center console thing with a hole large enough to fit a drink in there quite precariously. I once flooded the floor with a full drink trying to bring my dad lunch after he asked me to get him a large coke from a burger joint and the center console didn't hold it well enough.
1999 Cadillac Deville, confirmed sports car.
Mine had this hilariously over the top rig that folded out of the center armrest (and required you to open the compartment, fold it out, and then shut the lid), but the armrest was only usable if you weren't in "bench seat mode" which I always was.
Ah I remember buying my 92 prelude sight unseen. 1700 bucks. It was sick. Then I was sent to get coffee the next day. Come to find out I didn’t have cup holders haha. I figured it out but it was funny shifting and holding and dodging.
Thank you for adding /s to your post. When I first saw this, I was horrified. How could anybody say something like this? I immediately began writing a 1000 word paragraph about how horrible of a person you are. I even sent a copy to a Harvard professor to proofread it. After several hours of refining and editing, my comment was ready to absolutely destroy you. But then, just as I was about to hit send, I saw something in the corner of my eye. A /s at the end of your comment. Suddenly everything made sense. Your comment was sarcasm! I immediately burst out in laughter at the comedic genius of your comment. The person next to me on the bus saw your comment and started crying from laughter too. Before long, there was an entire bus of people on the floor laughing at your incredible use of comedy. All of this was due to you adding /s to your post. Thank you.
I am a bot if you couldn't figure that out, if I made a mistake, ignore it cause its not that fucking hard to ignore a comment.
A sports car can vary depending on performance, but they'll generally be 2 door coupes with 6 to 8 speed acceleration, a lower height compared to regular cars, 300hp minimum and great handling for tight corners. My 2013 G37 sport coupe is a good example of these elements.
[2 doors, 2 seats, soft top.](https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28225/sports-car-definition/) That's the actual definition. Anything else is watered down nonsense from people trying to justify their purchases.
According to merriam-webster: *a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving.*
No doors or top indicated. 'Usually' has a definition too if you'd like to look that up
It's almost like English is a living language and the dictionaries update terms when they get used incorrectly enough for long enough. See also: yeet, literally, and again, the entire point of the article.
Eh I think this definition is shit with the soft top part because it wouldn't include cars like hard top Elise's and Evora's which are more "sports cars" than 99% of everything else on the road.
That's the entire issue. You think sports car means fast. It doesn't. Those are GT cars if they don't have soft tops. That's how classification is supposed to work.
An Elise is not a grand tourer in any sense of the word, it is one of the least comfortable cars you can buy and is hellish to drive on long distances.
I don't why you think R&T is the final authority on anything, but I'll stick with the literal dictionary definition:
A low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving.
To me, sports car is a pretty narrow definition and I see a pretty specific shape and drive wheels when I hear those words.
Overall, I tend to look at it from the perspective of “is there a more accurate name?” when talking about performance cars that are in the gray area. Examples: GR Corolla = hot hatch, Civic Type R = hot hatch, WRX = sport sedan, BRZ / 86 = sports coupe but really edging to sports car, Mustang = pony car but only because they have a decently big footprint, FD RX7… sports car is the best I can come up with. Miata could go by roadster but sports car is pretty apt. 911 is a sports car. Corvette is a sports car (though the C8 is certainly making a strong case of being in the supercar territory). Supra and 400Z are pretty solidly sports cars. I’d even toss the higher end exotics out of the sports car category because they are supercars or hypercars. Both of those names tell me a little more about the car than just calling them “sports cars.”
I look at intent.
A car that was designed from the ground up to prioritize fun driving over practicality. The Miata, Hurrican, Corvette, Mustang, all have this in common.
A car that is a relatively normal car in its base form that can also do fun things (especially if you order a certain version of said car) is a "sporty" car. Not a sports car. This is where your Audi S cars come in. Your Civic SI. Your Focus RS.
The intent needs consideration, if not a standard cab F-150 is more of a sports-car than a WRX.
However to me, sports cars are the two seater cars that are made from the conception to be a sports cars. Like the corvette, NSX, Viper, MX-5, Z-cars, etc.. Everything else has proper name like muscle cars or hot hatches / sports-compact.
i got a chance to drive a family member's 911 (turbo s) a few times, and brought my little cousin in the back seat.
comedically tiny
only small children can fit, if even
Anything is possible if you put your mind to it!
All joking aside, my ex had a 996 Carrera, and I don’t know why they even bothered; it isn’t even enough to honestly call it a 2+2
[22 WRX 0-60 is 6.1s](https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2022-subaru-wrx-manual-first-test-review/)
[22 F150 Lariat Crew cab (heavier than short cab short bed) 0-60 is 5.3 seconds](https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/f-150/2022/)
F150 is only 500lbs heavier and has 180 more hp
The word sports to me indicates motorsports. Drag racing, autocross, baja racing, are all motorsports. Thus, a car designed with a motorsport in mind is a sports car. That includes muscle/pony cars as well as the 2 seaters you mentioned.
A WRX STI is a sports car despite being a 4 seater. As is a Mustang.
Sports car has nothing to do with motorsports. There was a racing class solely for Dodge Neons in the 90's. Those are clearly not sports cars.
STI and Mustangs are not sports cars.
With this logic all cars are sports cars XD ford made trucks with motorsports in mind as well as companies make everyday cars for with motorsports in mind XD
Having it included in your thought process as an afterthought (i.e. the Raptor version of the F150) is different from the Mustang (designed from the start specifically for motorsports)
Limiting yourself by specific criteria like seat count is pointless. The intent is what matters.
I agree with you but people will take apart every word and not have an honest conversation. Intention can belong to one man. For example.
I think there are cars that intend to look or feels sportier but don’t actually have comparable driving experience that you could say look sporty but don’t really feel sporty.
I like to think of it as, if the end results sacrifices a certain amount of comfort for performance, how that’s defined isn’t gonna always be the same but everyone knows.
In terms of intent, does an F-150 whose capabilities you’ll never actually make use of really seem like less of a sports car than a vehicle intended for a 34 year old to plastidip and drop his girlfriend back off at school after sixth period lunch?
I'll have you know that I was a 39 year old with a WRX, and I was dropping my daughter off at school. When your goal is to be the coolest dad at the elementary school all you need is some Sesame Street vans and a life size hot wheels car!
Mustang is NOT a sports car. It's a sporty car but certainly doesn't have the handling usually associated with sports car. It's pretty much a "wanna be".
Modern mustangs are absolutely sports cars. They have gotten really good handling as of late, and prior to being good on a track, we're still purpose built for fun over practicality, so their intent makes them sports cars.
I agree, but disagree on the focus RS. People don't realize the ENTIRE UNIBODY is actually different on the RS. It looks the same, but it's not, at all.
Yea, the RS is so different from a regular Focus the only thing they really share is the name. I went from an RS to a GT350 and the RS actually *felt* sportier day to day.
I went from the RS to a Porsche boxster GTS. The GTS is amazing and so crisp, but the shenanigans, predictability, and fun of the RS will never be matched!
RS is a hot hatch. It’s FWD based AWD and wouldn’t exist if not for the run of the mill the focus hatchback. My GR Corolla is also a hot hatch. No shame.
At a certain point, they become full-blown sports cars. The [Mini John Cooper Works GP3](https://youtube.com/shorts/ifvyEloWLL8?si=L5TRVSFeKg4qgL43) is one example.
I would argue that it's a performance sedan and not a true sports car. That JCW Mini has the rear seats removed and you HAVE to hand wash it. It's an irrational vehicle whose only purpose is track times.
You don't really make any compromises with the 4 door m cars compared to the rest of the trim levels. I would absolutely call the M1 a sports car, though. That thing is irrationally awesome.
This is just my opinion, but i personally believe that sports cars shouldn't be riding on a chassis that prioritizes something else besides fun if they really want to be considered a "true sports car."
The Mini (like the M3) started out as a normal car. That means fundamental aspects of the design can not be altered. What I really mean by this is that when the designers were initially planning out where everything would go, their priorities were not on fun. When they said "the engine goes here, it will face this direction. The seats will go here. They will be mounted X inches off the ground. The driver's face will be Y distance from the windshield, which will have a certain rake. The car will be Z inches in length...etc." they were planning all that out to maximize space for occupants, or any other number of practical considerations. Fun was not a priority at that stage as 99 percent of the vehicles riding on that chassis will not be the sporty versions.
And that stuff fundamentally REALLY matters and makes a difference in how a car drives.
This is not to say there's anything wrong with cars like the Mini GP. One of the fundamental things you design for when you're making an economy car like the Mini is to shoot for something small and light. That's GREAT for economy. But low key...it's also GREAT for performance! You're kind of killing two birds with one stone. If i'm being honest some of my absolute favorite performance/fun cars ever have been factory hot-rodded economy cars like the Civic Type R.
But they're not sports cars, even if they perform like one. You sit in these cars and you drive from an upright driving position. The center of gravity is not scraping the ground like it would be if you'd designed the car from the ground up to have a low center of gravity. You need stiffer springs to compensate, for that higher center of gravity and often times the wheelbas is just a touch longer than would really be preferred.
Of course the tradeoff is an insane amount of practicality for something so high performing.
Excellent cars (I myself own an M2, a car built on an economy car platform) but not what i'd consider "a sports car."
I mean yes but the performance and focus of certain trim levels definitely goes dips into the full blown sports car world even if they were t designed from the ground up for the track.
With Ford's recent focus on chassis dynamics I'd actually argue the new Mustangs are closer to a sports car than the muscle cars of the past.
Same with GM and their Alpha platform (Camaro).
Being a dedicated platform car is absolutely the litmus test for “sports car” imo
Getting into something made from the ground up to be engaging and fun is a very unique feeling and hard to understand unless you’ve experienced it. Sure a GTI feels “sporty” but it is nothing like getting into a purpose built car
My buddy has a 2009 Honda Accord Coupe, with the V6 and 6 speed manual.
Honestly, I'm impressed for it just being an accord. It's surprisingly sporty and fun to drive, and it doesn't look like your basic accord either. It actually looks pretty damn cool, lol.
Oh yeah im not saying it does lol. His car is quick and fun, but it's not fast and it's not a sports car. It's just an accord with 2 doors chopped off lol.
No. It's a luxary sedan first. Manual or not. You could describe it as sporty if you find it drives as such, but since it was designed as a luxary sedan and not to be a sports car first, it's not.
I think it's hilarious that (way...) before the Miata, the Neon was racking up so many SCCA wins that people quoted it as the most winning sports car in history a while back, quoting crazy SCCA numbers. IIR Dodge/Plymouth sold one or two each year that were completely gutted for SCCA competition, people got in line for them. But now I search for it and its track history and all I see is Miata, Miata, Miata.
So, Dodge Neon is one, hahahaha. I was stuck without a driveway in the city during that period, or I would have had either a Neon or a 914. I almost got a minty-looking 914 anyway because of a once-in-a-lifetime "get this off my wife's yard" situation, but we opened the door and jumped on the jam as soon as we got there and sure enough the unibody was rotted in the middle and it sagged.
The lines are blurred. For me it’s the way the car feels as I’m taking it through the curves. I owned a 97 Honda civic manual that felt like a sports car. Had faster sedans and pony cars that did not feel like sports cars. Drive a MGB or a Miata first and compare that to any other car before you call it a sports car.
There used to be people who insisted that sports car could only be two-seater roadsters.
I've driven Pontiac Firebirds for most of my life, including now. For me, that's a sports car. And a Camaro or a Mustang. Big engine, quick, great handling. When it was new, definitely qualified. By today's standards, it's slow.
The line is pretty blurred now. Everything is so fast compared 35 years ago. Back then, if you wanted a fast car, you needed to go with one of the cars I listed, or a Nissan Z. Corvette if you had the money, Porsche if you had even more. Now, just about everything is fast.
So maybe that old two-seat droptop definition has some relevance again.
Everyone seems to have their own definition. Pony car, no doubt.
Muscle car I don't agree. Muscle cars were usually high performance versions of pretty ordinary cars, like stuffing a big engine into a Pontiac Tempest and creating a GTO, or into the Cutlass and creating the Olds 442. Fast cars, not agile.
3rd gen Firebirds and Camaros had their own unique chassis and have outstanding handling, nothing like a typical muscle car. In my mind, they're sports cars, but that's me. (I know that original 1967 Firebirds and Camaros used a modified Nova chassis, not sure about the second generation but I think the chassis was pretty much the same. 3rd gen was all new, 4th gen used a modified 3rd gen chassis.)
I think of a muscle care as being more like a GTO, Chevelle, 442. Some of the Impalas. Kind of big fast cars with big engines. Not particularly agile.
A 3rd gen Firebird (and the Camaro) were among the best handling cars on the road when they came out in 1982. Even by modern standard, they can handle really well on a smooth road.
Unless you seriously modify it, a Firebird going to to get sadly embarrassed in a drag race. Unless maybe you're talking about a 1989 Turbo Trans Am or perhaps the Ram Air 4th gens.
Everybody seems to have a different definition of sports car, sporty car, muscle car, pony car. Firebird is definitely a pony car. I consider it a sports car as well. I don't think "muscle" really applies.
A muscle car is a car made up go fast in a straight line. Sports cars or sporty cars are about braking, turning, handling. Pontiac never made a sports car. Camero and mustang were also muscle cars until recently where they finally prioritized vehicle dynamics.
Firebirds, definitely not from the 3rd gen onward (1982-2002, were not just straight line cars. They just weren't. I can't say that I have first-hand experience with ones pre-1982, but I have logged about 250,000 miles on 3rd gens, and I had a 4th gen. If you've driven them, you know. Check out the archives from some magazine and read the reviews of the 1982-1992 Firebirds and Camaros, my favorite cars. See what they say about the handling. Car and Driver called the Camaro the best handling car built in the US.
If you bought a 3rd gen Camaro or Firebird for straight line performance, you'd probably be pretty disappointed. But in that era, nothing much was very fast in stock form. My '88 Trans Am GTA does about 7.0 seconds to 60. It was okay in 1988, pretty darn slow now of course. Kind of a heavy car. Some of the Camaro IROC-Zs and Z-28s were a bit lighter and faster, as was a Firebird Formula (used to have, my favorite trim level).
But whatever. I enjoy it. Was driving it not 45 minutes ago.
Tell me that after taking my 85 el camino for a spin. All original 125hp 4.3l v6 running on 5 cylinders. It'll do 65 down hill but can't maintain it up hill or flat ground because it starts backfiring through the manifold at more than 1/4 throttle 🤣🤣🤣
You’ve never driven a Ford Ranger in the mountains, I take it. I loved mine, most reliable car I ever owned, but acceleration was measured in furlongs per fortnight.
Purist's definition:
A sports car is a two seat convertible with rear wheel drive, a manual transmission, and a four cylinder engine.
A good modern alternative:
A sports car is a less practical, more fun to drive car than the best selling vehicles off that platform. A Nissan Z counts. A Model 3 might count but that's stretching it.
How pedantic do you want to get?
Tomatoes are fruit but also count as vegetables.
Strawberries aren't berries.
Basically the same argument you're gonna get here.
You gotta define your measurements system, that includes what isn't a sports car, and what those other cars could be categorized in.
For me it's a combination of form and function if we're using the term as a category to exclude other options from.
Form - 2 doors (no exceptions), 2 seats (or rear seats are an after thought like older 911s, GR86, or Evora 2+2). Low weight should be a goal.
Function - Designed with communicative fast driving as a priority over other things such as NVH, comfort, etc...
If comfort or luxury are a priority it slides toward grand tourer.
If it's a sedan or based on a sedan it's a sports sedan or GT as above.
Small fwd/awd derived cars are hot hatches or rally cars.
This means some trim levels may move the car from GT to sports car or vice versa. Performance isn't actually that important and there's a lot of overlap.
You're going to get a variety of answers here. In general, it's largely going to come down to a car that prioritizes performance and driver experience. I'd say the Civic Type R and it's Acura stalemate falls into the modern definition.
There is a traditional definition: light, RWD, 2 seater coupe or cabriolet/convertible, with a manual gearbox.
>There is a traditional definition: light, RWD, 2 seater coupe or cabriolet/convertible, with a manual gearbox.
I don't think the traditional definition needs to include two seater. Several sports car hero cars are 4 seaters. The Porsche 911 for example is a 2+2.
Cars evolve over time. One thing the 50s cars have in common with the sports cars of today is intent. That's why intent is better than arbitrary physical attributes
Which is the point I initially made and why I used the qualifier of 'traditional'. There was a time when what was considered a sports car was well defined. It's a lot murkier now.
I think the modern interpretation of sports car is as an umbrella term with several subsections. Pony cars, supercars, "traditional" sports cars, all go under that umbrella.
It truly depends on how many stickers are on the car, and how loud and stupid your fart can exhaust sounds coming out of your tiny pecker four cylinder. You get extra power if you have anime stickers on the car, and have a little thingy hanging from the back of your car, because racecar...
A sports car has a firm, almost uncomfortable ride, a seat so low to the ground that you fall into the car, and just enough power where you think that it kind of wants to kill you sometimes. And it might if you don’t respect it. That’s a sports car.
1. Sports car used to be rwd only 2 door 2 seat roadster. But now a sports car is a coupe/roadster/convertible that has either a 2 or 2+2 configuration that is meant to focus on handling, acceleration, speed and thrill of driving.
2. A honda civic type r or integra type s is a “sport compact car” or a “hot hatch.” This includes the ford focus, ford fiesta, golf gti, Impreza, lancer evolution, etc.
3. A muscle car is a domestic car that is usually a coupe that has a large v8 engine (or turbo v6, or v10) that is rwd
4. An exotic car is a Ferrari or Lamborghini or similar car
5. A sports sedan is a four door car that is meant to focus on handling, acceleration, speed and thrill of driving
I have an integra type r and consider it a sport compact/hot hatch. My 911, I consider a sports car.
There are lots of sporty fast cars out there. There needs to be a term to describe cars that are meant to be fun first, and everything else second. If not sports car, then what would you suggest?
I don’t consider AWD to be crucial to the definition of sports car. An R8 is certainly a sports car (or super car if you like)
RS3/TT fall into a category like M3/Z4 where they have factory go fast bits but are shoehorned into a platform that wasn’t really meant for it. New Z4 is different, that is a dedicated platform car as far as I know (shared with supra only) and not recycling the 3 series chassis like the older Z3/Z4 did
Dodge Charger is certainly not a sports car
The same stupid arguments your using I can do the same and say that cars like gr86, Miata’s are more of a roadster then a sports car because they aren’t really that fast.
Don’t you see that you can go out of your way to use different words to describe something?
Sports cars are cars that go fast some are more luxury, some have AWD, some are hatchbacks etc. just different branches of the sports car tree.
I would call that broader umbrella performance cars, not sports cars
I’m not going to protest you calling the miata a roadster, it is. It’s a 2 seater rwd convertible. It’s also a sports car because it was designed from the ground up to be fun to drive.
Performance parts are what separates an M3 from a 328i, or blackwing from a regular ct4. A totally different design separates a miata from a mazda 3
That is the distinction. You can feel the purpose when you get in a sports car in the way it feels, sounds, and drives
I don't think a muscle car needs to be an American car, even though it was very popular here. I also don't think it needs to be a coupe (I'd call a coupe muscle car a "pony car"). It's really just about shoving a big powerful engine into an otherwise fairly cheap and heavy car and "muscling power" out of them. And it's for this reason that I don't really consider modern Camaros and Mustangs to be muscle cars. They crossed the line into sports cars a bit less than 10 years ago.
So you're right in some sense. The holden Monaro or ford falcon (Aussie cars) are arguably muscle cars; a C63 is a German "muscle car". A charger, is a muscle car. But I still view Camaros and Mustangs as muscle cars. They're still pretty heavy cars. Maybe, the argument could be made that a Shelby/SS/Demon could be a sports car, but I think it's hard since they're still built on a cheap/heavy car platform.
I guess I look at the intention of building low weight cars is to allow for the car to be competitive in road racing where turns and stopping are imperative. Back in 2020 the GT500 was within 2 tenths of a second short of the Porche 911 GT3 RS in a race with professional drivers... I have a hard time seeing the weight as being a real differentiator. It becomes arbitrary at that point.
There are several articles from many of the main magazines that support your assertion.
I think it's really murky nowadays. For example: by the original definition a 911 is not a sports car, and a Boxster is sports car. I feel that a Shelby is more likely a sports car than a eco boost or a 5.0.
In the end this article kind of sums up why we shouldn't use sports car for anything other than the original definition - to prevent the small, rwd, great handling roadster from dying out.
[https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28225/sports-car-definition/](https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28225/sports-car-definition/)
​
\*lol, I don't really agree with the article- after all, While I have a 911 and a Boxster, I think both are sports cars and the 911 is a better sports car. Probably the same as you feel a mustang/camaro is a great sports car.
Lol no S5/RS5's can hit 200mph gps indicated with aftermarket turbos and E85 and they aren't supercars by any means. Hell just a stage 1 software only ECU tune on a B9 S5 tickles 190 mph with enough room.
I'd say a car that was designed from the ground up with driver engagement and performance being the main goals.
Cars like the type R and S are kind of tricky because they're still based on a family commuter. I'd lean into those being more performance packages than full on sports cars.
For more true sports cars, I'd consider them to be like the Supra, Nissan Z, GR86, Miata etc.
This take is hilariously bad.
Your "true" sports car in the gr86 has an economy engine that can't take right turns. Litterally 0 development in one of the most important criterias of a sports car.
The type R isn't a sports car because it saves money by reusing body panels and interior trim pieces. Meanwhile, everything mechanically from suspension, steering, engine, transmission, etc are completely different from the economy model. Yet, people who aren't smart enough to think and only draw conclusions from association think that "it was based on a civic so it can't be a sports car".
Meanwhile, the type r is the one with a race ready engine with forged internals that is used in TCR lmao.
I'd love to know. What part about the type r being based on normal civic holds it back from being a sports car? There are a significant amount of compromises made in any car. The Nissan Z is quite litterally the same shit box it was 15 years ago with almost zero development.
People choose this weird hill to die on. Oh, it shares body panels with a cheaper model. I understand if the trim was litterally just a +20hp option and stiffer springs pretending to be a sports car sure. But it depends on model to model. The type r is very obviously a real sports car.
Would love to hear what specifically holds back the type r from being a sports car due to being based on an economy car. Considering it's lighter weight than half the sports cars you listed, has a better manual, is significantly better composed on track with a more advanced suspension than most of those cars (double wishbone front).
The whole point of these sports cars based on an economy platform is that they have more money to put towards actual mechanical upgrades. Maybe if the BRZ used more body panels from another car they could have afforded to develop a real engine and not something out of an SUV.
That being said, I actually love the BRZ. This isn't about saying that the BRZ isn't a sports car, it's that the people with this take tend to know jack shit about cars and couldn't even answer my question
As I said, the type R is a performance package for the civic. Yes it has all performance things upgraded, but it was not designed from the ground up as a sports car. The main chassis was designed as a family commuter. Now the S2000 or NSX on the other hand are purpose built sports cars. There’s a difference.
Exhibit A of previously mentioned idiots.
The main chassis of the type r is significantly more advanced than the BRZ and gr86 being double wishbone up front and multi link rear. There's also a significant amount of chassis bracing, welding and aluminum suspension components. The type r's suspension and chassis is outright a mile ahead of the BRZ lmao.
Try again, and maybe try to actually make an argument. The BRZ has more in common with a Forester than the type r has with a base civic mechanically.
It’s also significantly heavier when it doesn’t need to be as well as bigger. They could have cut down on trunk space a lot and cut down on weight by making it shorter and a coupe instead of a sedan. But as I’ve been saying, based on a family car. So it’s a performance package.
Yet the supra and Z weigh 600 lbs more and are still a sports car.
Weight is not the only determining factor. Do you see how bad your argument is or do you want to keep trying.
My bad I mixed it up with the m240i/340i I was eyeing to buy.
Still,the type r is not remotely close to being overweight as it's the same weight as the 2.0 and at a level above performance wise.
Also a much higher displacement motor in the Supra and more power.
It’s pretty obvious what I’m saying, but you seem to be too focused on flinging insults and being offended than actually understanding.
I didn’t say weight was the only factor, but the fact that it’s a chassis that was originally designed for transport and comfort just makes it not purpose built. They can upgrade all kinds of components, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a commuter platform.
Like I said, if they wanted to design it from the ground up, it would look nothing like it does. It wouldn’t have such a big trunk and it wouldn’t have four doors, and it would have a shorter wheelbase.
Never said the type R was a bad car. It’s just a performance oriented civic.
The civic also has a significantly higher displacement motor than the BRZ and much more power.
No one's offended I'm not even a type r owner. You just have a terrible argument and are embarrassing yourself. Just because I'm throwing in insults doesn't mean that my argument isn't valid, especially when my argument isn't based off of you being an unsuccessful idiot, it's based off you being wrong
The chassis was originally designed for transport and comfort yes, as all cars are. Great argument. Having more rear legroom makes it not a sports car is basically your argument.
You're completely throwing away the fact that this is more than made up for by completely redesigning the suspension, and making a ton of chassis components out of aluminum.
The type r is lighter weight than 8/10 sports cars today. Why does it matter that it has usable back seats and a large trunk. Despite it, it still manages to weigh less than the majority of cars.
You could apply this argument to any car. The Miata is smaller than the BRZ. I guess the BRZ isn't a sports car because they designed it with a usable trunk, they should have made it smaller.
Being usable practically doesn't disqualify a car from being a sports car. A car isn't a sports car if it lacks the performance to be one.
You're just too moronic to look past body panels. If we flip this argument, the BRZ is completely built on an economy platform. Sure, it's not built off another car, but Subaru/Toyota made the car after years of experience making economy cars. The suspension is pedestrian, with strut front and no adaptive suspension. The engine comes out of a fucking SUV and can't make right turns. Yet it's still a sports car, a great sports car. Obviously, it'll have draw backs because it's a cheap car.
The point is, there is no criticism you can make to the type r that is unique to the type r. Yes there are definitely criticisms to be made for any car, no one is saying the car is perfect. But to disqualify the type r from being a sports car you'd need to disqualify basically every other sports car.
Like your moronic argument that the type r isn't a sports car because it's 3200 lbs, while 3800 lbs cars are okay. But then the goal posts shift that those cars make more power. The type r also makes more power than the two cars that are lighter than it.
If anything, I'd say an engine that literally cannot be driven hard disqualifies a car from being a sports car more than having rear legroom. Sick sports car man, it's neither fast in a straight line nor can it turn corners
You’re sounding extremely offended based on your tone. My argument is that Honda didn’t do everything they could have to make it a purpose built sports car. They built it on that platform and now it’s limited by that.
I wouldn’t consider the Jeep Trackhawk to be a sports car either. Just because they throw a powerful motor and some suspension upgrades in an SUV doesn’t make it purpose based.
I read this whole discussion and its a very interesting exchange of ideology. Its clear Subaru/Toyota had a good idea with the 86. Design a car that looks sporty and people will assume it is. Its essentially the same tactic BMW did with the M-Sport packages.
At least people still try to make cars like that lol. I’m really tired of all these sports packages of regular traffic becoming the norm. Like all the classic sports cars are dying and I fear that we will just be left with a sea of performance SUVs replacing all the unique cars left.
86 doesn’t share engines with anything other than the BRZ. The FA25 of the Outback and Forester is a completely different engine than the FB24 in the twins. The WRX does share engines with the Ascent and Outback XT.
I'm more annoyed that an idiot like you is making the dumbest arguments ever and pretending to be smart. Not everyone will coddle your feelings as you yap about stuff you have no idea about. Let others talk about cars and we'll let you talk about being a mediocre guitarist and window cleaner.
You're saying that the type r isn't a sports car because they didn't do everything they could have. So you're complaining that a car was made with limited budget. And you're not aware of how idiotic this is.
Let's compare to other cars. Did Toyota and Subaru do everything they could for the BRZ? Then why are they using economy car suspension and an engine out of an SUV?
All cars are made to a price point with significant compromises. You're just dumb enough to only apply it to the type r. Having a rear hatch and legroom is not nearly as detrimental as having an engine ripped straight out of an SUV. Did Toyota and Subaru do everything they could? Of course not, or else they would have put a real performance engine inside
The track hawk is obviously not a sports car. It's a huge fucking SUV. The type r is lighter than 8/10 sports cars being sold today, comparing it to something like a track hawk is idiotic.
Is a 911 a sports car? An NSX? A Viper? Obviously yes, nobody in their right minds would say otherwise.
If you question or need to validate whether or not it is a sports car, it isn’t one.
Thinking is hard for you blue collars I get it but we can very much have a discussion about it.
I agree that those cars are sports cars. There are also many people who obviously consider cars like the type r sports cars.
Being "obvious" to you isn't really an objective metric of anything. Savage geese gave affordable sports car of the year to the Elantra N and if IIRC the BRZ and type r previously. It's very much a matter that is up for you to debate.
I definitely agree that there are certainly valid points to be made against the type r but there are valid points to be made against almost any sports car.
Plenty of people think the way I do. You're just too dumb to hold an argument without getting worked out.
Some people have issues with learning or being proven wrong. Some people are afraid of thinking.
Considering your entire argument was "if you have to think about it you're wrong" I'm not sure why you're surprised you were called an idiot. Either way enjoy your manual labour job as I'm sure no one pays you to think
Awe the little Reddit guy got so offended that he went on my profile lol. That’s pretty pathetic.
Let’s see they made the BRZ with as low of a center of gravity as they could have at that price point. They made it small instead of throwing on two extra doors and making it longer. It’s a more capable chassis than the type R for modding because it was purposely built.
And no the trackhawk is definitely a sports car using your logic. Why should it matter that it used an SUV chassis? It’s got a powerful engine and suspension upgrades so it’s clearly a sports car.
See wrong again.
2014 BRZ ground clearance of 4.9 inches
2023 type r - 4.8
Track hawk - 8.1
Is this not embarrassing for you. Like how many times can you be wrong in a day.
An SUV is obviously very different. It's super tall and it weighs as much as a house. The type R is lighter than 8/10 sports cars, which is why I said weight is a weird point to bring up. No where did I say that weight was not important.
I was wondering if you're just an internet troll pretending to be stupid, but yeah after reading through your profile I'm sure it's not an act. Enjoy cleaning windows for $15 an hour buddy.
"The BRZ has more in common with a Forester than the type r has with a base civic mechanically."
As a Acura/ honda owner this is makes me smile. Nice 😂
Yet it is always the first thing people improve when they mod them. Sports cars are about balance; the ability to do everything well, because presumably they are going to be on a track
Me too. They are slow relative to other sports cars, but they were designed for driver enjoyment from the start so that’s why they still count. There are tons of fast cars that aren’t sports cars. Like teslas for example.
When the designers and engineers have to make a design choice or compromise, do they lean more towards performance or lean more towards something else that reduces performance such as noise and comfort reduction, aesthetics, etc.
Eh an S5 or M440i coupe are two doors and I don't consider them sports cars, rather slightly sportier versions of their sedan siblings (S4/M340i in this case).
I would say a convertible top makes it less of a sports car because it typically adds more weight compared to a non convertible, especially in cars with a unibody frame.
The best definition I've seen is that a sports car sacrifices practical things like a back seat, cargo space, smooth ride etc. for a more fun and exhilarating ride.
A race car sacrifices the same stuff for speed.
I think a drop top brings a lot to the driving experience, even if (as in the case of the Boxter & Cayman) it is slower around a race track.
But what about cars that were designed from the ground up to be convertibles, rather than coupes with the roof chopped off? Some are even designed with unique structural elements linking their transmissions and differentials, like a frame for the power plant.
Prob depends on the car but from what I've seen, if a manufacturer offers a car with a convertible option, there's a good chance that it will weigh more.
depends what kind of convertible though. like a miata with a manual soft top is definitely a lot lighter and more sporty than an slk550 with a power retractable hard top
You were probably told this by someone who has probably never tracked their car in their life.
There are plenty of 2 door 2 seaters designed with no HPD in mind. There are also a ton of 4 door 5 seaters with much more Motorsports development.
The actuality of how well a car can actually be used for motorsports purposes is much more important than the number of doors or seats. Number of doors or seats can imply performance, but there are plenty of granny cars that fit the bill lol. How well the car can actually perform should be much more important
I definitely agree that at some point the line between luxury and sports cars have become very blurred but that's a different topic.
An AMG wagon is a luxury car first but it's expensive enough that it comes with enough mechanical capability to be tracked. Despite that, most of those aren't actually capable of being tracked given their tires and brakes do not hold up to their weight.
Putting the type r in the same category is a dishonest argument given that the type r is clearly sports car first, luxury car far far second.
It’s subjective to a point. A lot of Civic fans will tell you it’s a sports car, and others will tell you it’s a sporty sedan.
A Hyundai Genesis Coupe would be subjective to many as well, despite having the configuration of a sports car(350 HP, RWD, 2DR, 2+2), yet many will consider it more of a “sporty GT” than a sports car.
“Any car that’s designed and manufactured with the intent for performance driving or sports driving to be the main purpose” should be the actual definition.
NO!
[This is a sports car](https://www.ebay.com/itm/166550013600?hash=item26c72786a0:g:NUIAAOSwYD9ktiMX).
It's a 1984 Buick LeSabre. Don't thank me. I'm a professional.
For me it's something that was designed for light weight agility over practicality from the outset - a compact coupe or convertible.
Heavy-weight GT's, hot hatches or performance sedans aren't "sports cars" to me in the strictest sense.
All this stuff sits under the umbrella of "performance car".
A 1984 Chrysler LeBaron. 2.2L 4 cylinder. With the slushbox 3 speed auto. Nothing says "Sports Car" like that. There was a time where some people believed that.
In reality, a sports car should be light as a feather, be pretty as a supermodel, be painted like a cockatoo, and sing like a bird at speed.
Oh you want to ask the question? THE question, of many arguments.
I’m your huckleberry.
The type r or s is a pocket rocket, a subcompact built around two or four doors. There was a four door integra gs-r and there was a four door bmw m3.
So that’s enough to throw a wrench into any classification. there goes rwd pony car. And you know what else I can poison your mind with?
Sedans came as both two and four doors in America.
And then now in modern times we call a four door a sport coupe. The Audi four door s5.
And then??? Then the s4 was a four door. But the convertible s4 was two door. And it was sold at the same time a two door s5 convertible was. Two two door convertibles with the same engine but different names and interiors and bodies. But they were grand touring cars. And so eliminated from sports car classification by weight.
But then the bmw m3 v8 weighed more than the same year Audi s5. So the m3 isn’t a sports car but the heavy Audi is?
Enjoy your brain scrambling. There is no order, just chaos. :)
The IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship features two styles of cars – Prototype, which showcases the latest automotive technology and are uniquely designed for the racetrack, and GT, which is based on road-going production models. These two styles of cars make up the series’ four classes – Grand Touring Prototype (GTP), Le Mans Prototype 2 (LMP2), GT Daytona Pro (GTD PRO) and GT Daytona (GTD).
idk what exactly makes a vehicle a sportscar, but the one thing that makes a car definitely not a sportscar is the motor not being connected to the rear wheels. so the answer to your question is no, they aren't.
RWD, no more than 4 seats, 2+2 doors (see RX-8), and a design purpose built for sportiness. Not a sedan or hatch that was adapted for sporty reason, but designed from the ground up for it.
It all depends on how it’s build and or modified, if someone slaps a deck spoiler on a civic it’s just plain ugly ***BUT*** if you spend 10-20 grand rebuilding it to be more purpose built for racing then said civic can be considered a sports car
Manufacturer classification. If the car is performance oriented and the manufacturer says its class "s" (sports cars) on the door tag,, then it's a sports car. Can't argue with what the creator of the car says it is
2 door, rear wheel drive, manual transmission, 2 or 4 seats, no power limitations. No exceptions to this. Sick of seeing people thinking their Civic Si’s, 4 door sedans, Focuses, and Golf’s are sports cars, they’re not. Sporty car =/= sports car.
Personally I think it’s the lack of practicality and fun being turned up to 11. My old WRX was a sports sedan. Sporty and quick but no means fast. Functional storage. My friend’s Type R is a sporty / hot hatch. Fast, practical. My friend’s Supra I consider a Sports car because he can drive it fast and maybe fit his lunch box in the trunk if he carries a passenger that’s like child sized.
Basically copy and pasted but going to post it again because I know I'm not going to get any worthwhile responses under the reply.
The take that cars built on a cheaper economy car can't be sports cars is hilariously bad
A "true" sports car in the gr86 has an economy engine that can't take right turns. Litterally 0 development in one of the most important criterias of a sports car.
The type R isn't a sports car because it saves money by reusing body panels and interior trim pieces. Meanwhile, everything mechanically from suspension, steering, engine, transmission, etc are completely different from the economy model. Yet, people who aren't smart enough to think and only draw conclusions from association think that "it was based on a civic so it can't be a sports car".
Meanwhile, the type r is the one with a race ready engine with forged internals that is used in TCR lmao.
I'd love to know. What part about the type r being based on normal civic holds it back from being a sports car? There are a significant amount of compromises made in any car. The Nissan Z is quite litterally the same shit box it was 15 years ago with almost zero development.
People choose this weird hill to die on. Oh, it shares body panels with a cheaper model. I understand if the trim was litterally just a +20hp option and stiffer springs pretending to be a sports car sure. But it depends on model to model. The type r is very obviously a real sports car.
Would love to hear what specifically holds back the type r from being a sports car due to being based on an economy car. Considering it's lighter weight than half the sports cars you listed, has a better manual, is significantly better composed on track with a more advanced suspension than most of those cars (double wishbone front).
The whole point of these sports cars based on an economy platform is that they have more money to put towards actual mechanical upgrades. Maybe if the BRZ used more body panels from another car they could have afforded to develop a real engine and not something out of an SUV.
That being said, I actually love the BRZ. This isn't about saying that the BRZ isn't a sports car, it's that the people with this take tend to know jack shit about cars and couldn't even answer my question.
It's also hilarious that by going with the same logic the genesis coupe is a sports car. It's rwd, 2+2 and wasn't built off a Hyundai Elantra. Except, there wasn't a single bit of Motorsports development on that car. The engine came straight out of an SUV, the suspension was horribly soft and the car was a 4000 lb turd that couldn't brake on track without over heating. Worst in class handling, although it was the budget value option. Steering rack came out of an NPC car. But by most people's logic, a sports car.
Then there's the Elantra N. Significantly more development in terms of anything mechanical. Suspension, steering rack, integrated axles, Motorsports built engine (theta 2i used only in N cars, as opposed to the main stream shitty theta 2), rear suspension, aero, huge brakes, brake ducting, exhaust, etc... Almost nothing carried over in terms of functional performance parts. Sure it uses body fenders from the base Elantra as well as interior trim pieces. How does that hold it back from being a sports car. Any car, sports car or not, at that price range will have a significant amount of compromises in both performance and luxury. But it's very obvious that this car was made with motorsports in mind while the Genesis coupe couldn't survive a 2 minute hot lap.
If anything, being based on an economy platform might hold it back from being a good luxury car. Given that the cars I'm talking about (gr Corolla, type r, Elantra N, golf r, etc) are completely redesigned from the ground up, it's an outright idiotic take that sharing body panels disqualifies you from being a sports car.
Additionally, the amount of trim pieces reused in American cars is hilarious. Sharing interior trim plastic with a Chevy Malibu doesn't disqualify cars from being sports cars and it shouldn't. It's just a realistic cost saving measure. People only choose the body panel argument because they don't know anything about cars and body panels are the only things they can identify.
Depends on car to car. I'd struggle to see a Mazda3 turbo as a sports car given that it's heavy ASF, open diff AWD, understeers like a pig, torsion bar rear, and has an inadequate braking system.
The cars you listed yes, because they have a significant amount of motorsports development.
My point isn't that every car with a sport trim is automatically a sports car, but that sharing body panels doesn't immediately make you not a sports car.
In the case of the type r, gr Corolla, and Elantra N these cars basically only share body panels. Chassis, suspension, engine, steering, differential, transmissions are all different. It's an immediate sign that someone doesn't know what they're talking about when they say oh it's based on an economy car therefore not a sports car. The same people couldn't even list what those cars have in common with the base models and why that makes it not a sports car.
Nice, so would you consider a 2007- 08' Acura TL Type-S manual a sports car or...
a luxury sedan even though it's a type-s with manual trans and Type-S specific upgrades?
Depends if it comes with an lsd. If we're choosing hills to die on having an LSD is by far the most important thing or me.
An LSD really makes the difference from luxury car with some power to corner carving monster. I know some of those TL"s did come with an LSD.
My least favorite are open diff awd's. Completely for 0-60's and will understeer like a pig with all that weight for no reason.
Actually, I do not. If a sports car comes in both hardtop and convertible versions, I almost always prefer the hardtop. I also have a Miata, so there's that...
I think a better question is what ISNT. A ford ranger can be a sports car. A Miata can be a sports car. A Tacoma or a Yukon could not. An RV could be a sports car. Airplanes are also not sports cars.
Those are sporty cars, not sports cars.
Like many things, it's tough to come up with a perfect definition, but here's what it means to me:
A sports car is a small, lightweight car, with either a 2 seat or 2+2 layout, that is optimized for the driving experience. It can be either a roadster or a hardtop, and can be, but does not need to be, somewhat fast.
A large, fast car with 2 doors and 2-4 seats is a grand tourer.
A small, extremely fast car with 2 doors and 2 seats, particularly with a mid engine, is a supercar.
A practical/family car with some sporty features is a "sporty" car. This is a broad category, including hot hatches (e.g. GTI) and sports sedans (e.g. 3-series).
IMO, sports cars are design specific and generally don't make concessions and go out of their way for things like additional passengers, storage space, or being uber comfy.
There isn't a standard definition, but for me a sports car has
2 seats, and no more
Preferably a convertible
Prioritizes fun and driving dynamics over practicality
It does not need to be high performance
It does not need to be rear wheel drive
For me, it’s just a car that has components selected for spirited driving. Bigger engine, stiffer suspension, free-flowing exhaust, bolstered seats. I’d say the Civic SI (and more the Type R) are sports cars, while the standard Civic is not.
I definitely consider the Civic Type R a sports car. To me sports car is a blanket term that includes all sporty cars. For example, a Golf GTI, Mustang GT, and a Koenigsegg are all sports cars. Different variations of the term but still sports cars.
In my opinion, it has to have been designed with performance in mind and have no more than two seats. One seat for the driver and the other just because there's room over there, so might as well put one there. It doesn't even necessarily have to have a powerful engine. If it has more than two seats, it could be a Grand Tourer or muscle car or some other name but not really a SPORTS car. Nothing wrong with these other rypes of cars, and they can even be faster than a "sports car," but if a whole other row of seats were designed in, then performance was not a priority. There are, of course, exceptions. It's hard to say that a 4 seat 911 or a 3 seat McClaren are not sports cars.
High power, powerful brakes, agile, tuned & geared for speed, low weight. Different hardware than the run-of-the-mill variants. I’d include those two vehicles as sports cars.
Most muscle cars care less about their weight so a muscle car can be both but not always.
I think it just has to be sport oriented. The Miata doesn't have much power, but it has every other ingredient. And I think most people are willing to accept it as a sports car
I remember years ago when my dad bought a new ‘91 Maxima. It had a little sticker on the back windows that said 4DSC (4 Door Sports Car). That amused him to no end.
It WAS pretty fun. Not sure if Nissan was right about it being a sports car tho.
My definition of a sports car is a car that has a nice design, and has good speed like 0-60 in 6 seconds or something. But really, as long as it’s fun for the driver to drive fast, that’s it. I define a Beetle 2012 Sportline as a sporty car. A BMW M3 a sports car.
349 Comments
Jugzrevenge@reddit
JD0x0@reddit
dg_matee@reddit
Darkslayer_@reddit
Proof-Marsupial940@reddit
Large_Snow1481@reddit
Proof-Marsupial940@reddit
TheBigHairyThing@reddit
Large_Snow1481@reddit
Large_Snow1481@reddit
psychocopter@reddit
Darkslayer_@reddit
Proof-Marsupial940@reddit
Darkslayer_@reddit
redeyedrenegade420@reddit
Agitated_Tip6413@reddit
BluesyMoo@reddit
jeffroyisyourboy@reddit
MrMeesesPieces@reddit
jeffroyisyourboy@reddit
MrMeesesPieces@reddit
Korzag@reddit
iwantthisnowdammit@reddit
Bob_Loblaw16@reddit
chubbybronco@reddit
LeakyCVBoot@reddit
Morscerta9116@reddit
Lothar_Ecklord@reddit
Spencie61@reddit
Morscerta9116@reddit
Nickdanger1990@reddit
kungfoocraig@reddit
Curious-Reception-10@reddit
sacktikkla@reddit
Pdb12345@reddit
phdibart@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
phdibart@reddit
s_copypasta_bot@reddit
hung4fun12345@reddit
Own-Lemon8708@reddit
cdawg1102@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
Romeofud@reddit
B5_S4@reddit
n0n5en5e@reddit
B5_S4@reddit
n0n5en5e@reddit
B5_S4@reddit
clingbat@reddit
B5_S4@reddit
clingbat@reddit
B5_S4@reddit
clingbat@reddit
OKatmostthings@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
that_motorcycle_guy@reddit
porchprovider@reddit
FrequentlyLexi@reddit
n0n5en5e@reddit
Muufffins@reddit
opuap@reddit
hoof_art_did@reddit
Altitude7199@reddit
hoof_art_did@reddit
Altitude7199@reddit
hoof_art_did@reddit
Automatic-Bedroom112@reddit
Pmmeyourfavoriteword@reddit
Automatic-Bedroom112@reddit
Pmmeyourfavoriteword@reddit
Automatic-Bedroom112@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
Independent-Disk-390@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
jasonfromearth1981@reddit
Independent-Disk-390@reddit
Slight-Following-728@reddit
Alexander_Granite@reddit
Foxtrot_4@reddit
Vladimirdemi@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
WebexBlack@reddit
Kinky_mofo@reddit
GotThoseJukes@reddit
redeyedrenegade420@reddit
Defiant-Comfort-4407@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
Altitude7199@reddit
ridethe907@reddit
Altitude7199@reddit
OKatmostthings@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
SpaceGator3000@reddit
TakeitEasy6@reddit
SpaceGator3000@reddit
RunninOnMT@reddit
SpaceGator3000@reddit
JD0x0@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
Slight-Following-728@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
Slight-Following-728@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
Slight-Following-728@reddit
avoidhugeships@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
ReyneOfFire@reddit
WebexBlack@reddit
Spencie61@reddit
rockdude625@reddit
Slight-Following-728@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
Slight-Following-728@reddit
Trick_Minute2259@reddit
Slight-Following-728@reddit
nitrion@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
nitrion@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
T2ner@reddit
txd0mask@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
eso_nwah@reddit
Oldguy-context@reddit
fbird1988@reddit
Drug_fueled_sarcasm@reddit
fbird1988@reddit
Altitude7199@reddit
fbird1988@reddit
Altitude7199@reddit
01WS6@reddit
Altitude7199@reddit
fbird1988@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
Snakedoctor404@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
k6bso@reddit
porschephille@reddit
fbird1988@reddit
Heavy_Gap_5047@reddit
fbird1988@reddit
kerrath@reddit
Large_Snow1481@reddit
f5alcon@reddit
MichiganKarter@reddit
reidlos1624@reddit
redmadog@reddit
jiggiwatt@reddit
troutbum6o@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
jiggiwatt@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
jiggiwatt@reddit
Lord_Metagross@reddit
phantombovine@reddit
Druidicflow@reddit
Alexander_Granite@reddit
mykraniliS@reddit
CtForrestEye@reddit
Boring_Adeptness_334@reddit
LeakyCVBoot@reddit
OddTry2427@reddit
babsrambler@reddit
TerranRepublic@reddit
RepeatFine981@reddit
FreshBid5295@reddit
BasilVegetable3339@reddit
txd0mask@reddit
Heavy_Gap_5047@reddit
Any_Move@reddit
Spencie61@reddit
Any_Move@reddit
Spencie61@reddit
Any_Move@reddit
Spencie61@reddit
Any_Move@reddit
TheeMalaka@reddit
Spencie61@reddit
TheeMalaka@reddit
Spencie61@reddit
TheeMalaka@reddit
Spencie61@reddit
TheeMalaka@reddit
Spencie61@reddit
TheeMalaka@reddit
Spencie61@reddit
TheeMalaka@reddit
Kinky_mofo@reddit
dcgregoryaphone@reddit
txd0mask@reddit
dcgregoryaphone@reddit
txd0mask@reddit
Downtown_Parking92@reddit
Practical_Ride_8344@reddit
bigcee42@reddit
Irishrebels@reddit
Altitude7199@reddit
clingbat@reddit
Altitude7199@reddit
clingbat@reddit
Listogast@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
Listogast@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
Listogast@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
OKatmostthings@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
Listogast@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
Listogast@reddit
LumpyCustard4@reddit
Listogast@reddit
LumpyCustard4@reddit
OKatmostthings@reddit
Listogast@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
hoof_art_did@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
hoof_art_did@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
hoof_art_did@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
hoof_art_did@reddit
Listogast@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
Listogast@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
Listogast@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
OKatmostthings@reddit
Jealous_Meat@reddit
Beekatiebee@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
TGripps@reddit
hoof_art_did@reddit
Altitude7199@reddit
hoof_art_did@reddit
Altitude7199@reddit
hoof_art_did@reddit
Listogast@reddit
SunRev@reddit
DaleGribble2024@reddit
clingbat@reddit
rscottyb86@reddit
leem16boosted@reddit
PhoenixJDM@reddit
Hewhobreaksthings@reddit
DargeBaVarder@reddit
Hewhobreaksthings@reddit
Ponklemoose@reddit
forewer21@reddit
Ponklemoose@reddit
LumpyCustard4@reddit
ads1031@reddit
forewer21@reddit
WFPBvegan2@reddit
the_biggest_papi@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
Heavy_Gap_5047@reddit
Oh_G_Steve@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
Kite_d@reddit
ruturaj001@reddit
Active-Driver-790@reddit
Mysterious_Ad7461@reddit
LargeMerican@reddit
Bread-fi@reddit
MasterpieceSpare7016@reddit
Dirt077@reddit
goizn_mi@reddit
Past-Direction9145@reddit
RKWTHNVWLS@reddit
Whitehoneybun@reddit
Novogobo@reddit
DargeBaVarder@reddit
Heavy_Gap_5047@reddit
Altitude7199@reddit
Heavy_Gap_5047@reddit
Federal_Software6076@reddit
Snakedoctor404@reddit
breadroll2@reddit
Blu_yello_husky@reddit
jondes99@reddit
DewaltMaximaCessna@reddit
JoeyJoeJoeSenior@reddit
ZovioTV@reddit
aringa@reddit
Altitude7199@reddit
Express-Rutabaga-105@reddit
JuryGhost@reddit
ScaryfatkidGT@reddit
porcelainvacation@reddit
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
HughMongusMikeOxlong@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
MrMeesesPieces@reddit
LippyD123@reddit
jeffroyisyourboy@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
jeffroyisyourboy@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
TraditionalSelf3750@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
Jedzoil@reddit
Oh_G_Steve@reddit
hoof_art_did@reddit
PrinceConquer420@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
maxima-3point0@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
wgblackmon@reddit
nattyd@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
nattyd@reddit
b787665@reddit (OP)
Infinite_Regret8341@reddit
ReallyEvilRob@reddit
jorgepolak@reddit
meapplejak@reddit
JD0x0@reddit
MerbleTheGnome@reddit
cownan@reddit
RubenLay223@reddit
O-sku@reddit
_-ShouldBeWorking-_@reddit
jdawg3051@reddit
fear_knot@reddit
WFPBvegan2@reddit
lalulunaluna@reddit
BothPartiesAreDumb@reddit
BigSmokesCheese@reddit
UnsnugHero@reddit
mukwah@reddit
lol_camis@reddit
CommissarCiaphisCain@reddit
rhb4n8@reddit
full_stealth@reddit
Fortimus_Prime@reddit
Notonfoodstamps@reddit
Notonfoodstamps@reddit
Dedward5@reddit